say MSU loses to Wisconsin (Very much could happen), why should UofM get an at large bid over a CLEARLY superior MSU team that just happened to have the misfortune to play one extra game?

First, there is no "should." If the right combination of wins and losses happen to hand U-M an at-large BCS invitation, that's at the whim of the bowls themselves. Those same "which two teams will generate the most revenue?" decisions took place in conference rooms before the BCS was even a glimmer in anyone's eye. It's not about what you or I think is "fair."

Why does Alabama get to sit home with munchies watching LSU play Georgia, without having to lift a finger for the rematch that's looking imminent at this point? Why does a 6-6 UCLA team with an already-fired coach get handed their division and play Oregon for the Pac-12 Championship? I'm not seriously posing those questions, but the answer is: there are always perceived "injustices" because fans are conditioned to look for them. If you instead take a step back and objectively look at the whole picture, these little issues develop as consequences of NCAA and conference regulations, as well as the BCS, over the course of months if not years. It won't matter if you fundamentally change or replace the entire system, they'll still happen. In a 120-team league, someone will always get left out of something. That's just the nature of the beast, and whining about little intangibles is a fool's errand.

Ask the SEC or Big XII teams about conference championship games and how badly those losses can sting -- they've been playing them since 1992 and 1996, respectively. For the Big Ten, it's a small price to pay considering that this new format will finally end ties for the conference title. Remember the 1990 season when there was a four-way split? If you've never seen that list before, you might want to take a look. That's what the schools, coaches, players, and fans wanted to correct. So the Big Ten finally invited another team and instituted a conference championship game to resolve these issues on the field, as it should be. If the winner of one division doesn't meet the other in regular season play (like your gripe about Michigan not playing Wisconsin), they'll meet in the CCG -- all they have to do is win their division and the system does the rest. This year, it results in a regular season rematch.

At 10-3, MSU or UW will almost certainly drop below #14 in the final BCS standings, and won't be eligible for a BCS at-large bid. All either team had to do to avoid that situation was not lose twice during the regular season. Or to really drive the point home, not lose at all. It's just that simple. Meanwhile, the conference champion advances to the Rose Bowl, and a defensive coordinator is going to have recurrent nightmares about trying to contain Oregon's offense.

Your use of "clearly superior" can only successfully describe one concrete fact: Michigan State beat Michigan head-to-head. Beyond that, it's meaningless, because it's arbitrary. Why didn't a "clearly superior" Spartan squad beat Notre Dame or Nebraska? How did the "clearly superior" Spartan defense, ranked #3 in the nation, give up 415 yards and 24 points to a hapless Minnesota team which Michigan beat 58-0? See, these are pointless types of questions and arguments people get into when they're insisting that a team's performance is static over the course of an entire season. In reality, it varies wildly, and you only get an aggregate measure at the end.

What we know, without question, is that Michigan, Michigan State, and Wisconsin each lost two road games. The only real separation is that Michigan State ended up with the best conference record, since they dropped one game to a non-conference foe. If you could replay all six of those games console-style, you'd get different opportunities, momentum shifts, and results. Each team has had its own issues, hurdles, brain farts, and injuries to overcome. "Clearly superior," as you've put it, is not only misleading, it's wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by marcelos11

as far as SoS goes, UofM didn't even have to play Wisconsin, who was considered a national title contender at the beginning of hte year and is considered one of the best teams (with MSU) in the big 10, how they warrant a higher SoS than MSU is beyond me, sans maybe a stronger schedule against the "weaker teams" but honestly i don't even consider those games because frankly, they are supposed to be pushovers. when i look at SoS i look at the hardest teams a team played, and frankly Michigan doesn't stack up, heck, outside of MSU, almost any team that had any sort of good record was played at home.

Wisconsin is a good football team, no doubt. Yes, they were considered a national title contender at one point... until they dropped two games. You don't get any credit for a previous snapshot in time, when expectations were different. You get credit for results. Michigan was ranked #11 before losing to Michigan State... should that have any bearing on the rest of their season? No, of course not. They got punched in the mouth and dropped in the rankings, and again a second time after losing to Iowa. They nearly dropped out of the top 25 before winning their last three games. Now they're on the edge of BCS at-large eligibility, and may or may not get in. You might as well blame every team above #24 from November 5th onward for losing and allowing Michigan to creep back up in the rankings. I'm sorry, but your approach just doesn't make any sense, let alone for such an inconsequential grievance.

Big Ten conference schedules rotate, and that's nobody's fault, it's just the way the system is designed. Michigan and Wisconsin don't meet again in the regular season until 2015 due to the logistics of crossover and protected scheduling between divisions.

When the analysts and various computer ratings look at strength of schedule, Michigan gets better marks for two reasons: 1) MSU and Wisconsin both hosted a FCS team in their non-conference schedule; 2) all but one of MSU's and Wisconsin's other non-conference opponents have losing records. Ignore them (Notre Dame and NIU, respectively) and that translates into (4-19) and (4-18). Adding insult to injury, both MSU and UW had to play a (1-11) Indiana squad in conference which might as well be eleven orange cones. Meanwhile, all of Michigan's non-conference opponents posted winning records. That's why, using actual calculations - even with different weighting or slightly different criteria - Michigan's S.O.S. comes out rated above the other two, even with all those home games in Ann Arbor. You can look to experts outside the BCS entirely (like Jerry Palm) and you get the same pattern.

Where I think you're going wrong is this: you don't tally up schedule strength by trying to penalize for games that weren't played. Instead, you should assign value based on those which were. Also, your method of eyeballing schedule strength doesn't follow any system, so it too is arbitrary. If you don't want Michigan to play in a BCS game, that's fine -- say "Fuck Michigan, I hate those bastards!" instead. But there's no reason to manufacture an ad-hoc argument and pretend it can be substantiated independently.

Originally Posted by marcelos11

yes, i am not a Wolverines fan at all, i will admit that, but it doesn't change the fact that both Wisconsin and MSU are clearly stronger teams, and one will have the misfortune of being knocked out of a BCS at large bid, while a decidely weaker team gets to float by on a free week and slide into an at large bid (possibly).

Don't worry, Michigan State will eventually wind up in the BCS. It just won't be this year.

Right? I'd stick with ESPN and let the NCAA work out all those sanctions first.

Wouldn't it be just great if the NCAA could perhaps speed up the process a little bit? I hate the Buckeyes and thoroughly enjoy the torture they are being put through, but come on, just get the sanctions done so they know what they are dealing with in the immediate future. You have to imagine they will be pretty tough sanctions, if not the NCAA can go screw itself. They absolutely laid the hammer down on USC for one player in Reggie Bush to the point where a Top 10 team this year can't win its conference or play in a bowl. OSU was a much, much bigger issue. This is a systemic issue, not just a single player. There have been dozens of OSU players that either have solid allegations against them, have been suspended, are out of the NCAA but would face suspensions, etc. It is still incredibly surprising to me that Smith and Gordon Gee have their jobs still. I really thought the board would force them out but apparently they decided to just fire Tressel and then scapegoat Pryor for a much bigger problem. Even after stuff started to come out about the signature sales, OSU players were still getting nabbed for stuff like charity "appearances" and falsified work records. Nothing is going to change at OSU unless the sanctions are significant, like blow USC away significant. That certainly is going to hamper Meyer in the first couple years, but even with that, OSU is still a damn good job and will continue to be a powerhouse in spite of the sanctions.

Wouldn't it be just great if the NCAA could perhaps speed up the process a little bit? I hate the Buckeyes and thoroughly enjoy the torture they are being put through, but come on, just get the sanctions done so they know what they are dealing with in the immediate future. You have to imagine they will be pretty tough sanctions, if not the NCAA can go screw itself. They absolutely laid the hammer down on USC for one player in Reggie Bush to the point where a Top 10 team this year can't win its conference or play in a bowl. OSU was a much, much bigger issue. This is a systemic issue, not just a single player.

No doubt. Seeing how the NCAA has handled recent investigations (Ohio State, USC, and Oklahoma all spring to mind), I'm pretty sure the process looks just like this.

Meanwhile, Pat Forde sure puts the Meyer situation in perspective. I doubt Pat will get many Christmas cards from Columbus.

All I have to say is if the Big East sends a team to a BCS bowl game college football in its current form is finished. No sane person could possibly argue that the Big East deserves to have a 3or 4 loss team playing for a top bowl game when 1 or 2 loss teams that are BCS eligible would be left out. We saw what happened last year when they sent a worthless unranked UConn to a BCS bowl game. Not only did they not sell any tickets but they got flat out curb stomped. If you suck you shouldnt play in good bowl games.

God willing, USF beats WVU this weekend and knocks them out of the top 25 removing the Big East from the BCS altogether for this year allowing them to be replaced by somebody more deserving. If not, hopefully the voters all get together and decide to completely tank WVUs ranking. They have played two ranked teams all year. TWO! And those were LSU that completely hammered them and Cinncy who they barely beat. Compare that to a team like LSU which has played EIGHT teams ranked in the top 25 including three top 10 teams. The computers absolutely hate WVU having them at an unranked .000. The only thing keeping them and the Big East relevant is the USA Today voters. Hopefully they come to their senses, which they won't because there are some of them probably getting Big East money, and drop WVU.

At least if the BCS is going to stick around, which pisses me off to no end, the Big East will likely lose its AQ status in the near future. Every major college has bolted from the Big East now. That conference is a complete mockery at this point. It is has so many schools that are basketball only, football only, or aren't even East if Boise and SDSU end up joining. It is just such a total joke at this point. The Big East needs to be dissolved by the NCAA and the teams split among the ACC, SEC, MAC, and Big10. But we all know that won't happen because it will no longer line the pockets of the Big East brass with money. Same reason that there won't be a tourney in football. The ADs will stop making bonuses for reaching bowl games, despite their colleges losing literally millions of dollars by going to those bowls.

God willing, USF beats WVU this weekend and knocks them out of the top 25 removing the Big East from the BCS altogether for this year allowing them to be replaced by somebody more deserving. If not, hopefully the voters all get together and decide to completely tank WVUs ranking. They have played two ranked teams all year. TWO! And those were LSU that completely hammered them and Cinncy who they barely beat. Compare that to a team like LSU which has played EIGHT teams ranked in the top 25 including three top 10 teams. The computers absolutely hate WVU having them at an unranked .000. The only thing keeping them and the Big East relevant is the USA Today voters. Hopefully they come to their senses, which they won't because there are some of them probably getting Big East money, and drop WVU.

At least if the BCS is going to stick around, which pisses me off to no end, the Big East will likely lose its AQ status in the near future. Every major college has bolted from the Big East now. That conference is a complete mockery at this point. It is has so many schools that are basketball only, football only, or aren't even East if Boise and SDSU end up joining. It is just such a total joke at this point. The Big East needs to be dissolved by the NCAA and the teams split among the ACC, SEC, MAC, and Big10. But we all know that won't happen because it will no longer line the pockets of the Big East brass with money. Same reason that there won't be a tourney in football. The ADs will stop making bonuses for reaching bowl games, despite their colleges losing literally millions of dollars by going to those bowls.

No way will they take away the Big East's AQ. It'd be lawsuit city. And the information Big East officials could potentially leak out about the BCS....THAT would kill the BCS.

No way will they take away the Big East's AQ. It'd be lawsuit city. And the information Big East officials could potentially leak out about the BCS....THAT would kill the BCS.

Theres nothing left to leak about the BCS. Everyone knows it is corrupt, but the NCAA refuses to do anything about it. The Bowls actively donate money to political candidates in the names of their employees. They take ADs, conference commissioners, the media, etc. on lavish vacations and cruises. Everyone knows about all of that and has known about it for years. If that sort of corruption isn't enough to get the BCS shut down, what is, finding out that all the Bowl commissioners get together and have a party where they fondle young boys?

Just imagine, if Alabama and LSU end up meeting in the championship and Alabama wins, the National Champion will be a 12-1 Alabama that beat LSU at a neutral site, not a 13-1 LSU that beat Alabama in Alabama. Even with a loss, LSU has a much stronger resume than Bama.

LSU has played and beat eight top 25 teams (after Georgia) including three in the top 10 (Oregon, Ark, Bama) this year. Those games include non-conference games against Pac12 Champ Oregon and Big East BCS rep WVU (barring major upsets). They also beat Alabama in Alabama. With a loss in the BCS NC game, LSU would finish 13-1.

Alabama on the other hand has played only four teams in the top 25 and only one of which was in the Top 10 (LSU) which they lost. Their only non-conference game of relevance was against a bad Penn State team that was never as good as their record indicated this season (look at how lolable their schedule was). They also lost to LSU at home.

How can anyone justify giving the National Championship to Bama if they beat LSU? They will wind up with a worse record than LSU, they won't have won their division or their conference, and they will only have beaten LSU at a neutral site. I am pulling for Bama if the rematch happens (which I wouldn't doubt won't if the voters sink Bama if OSU wins this week) because it will result in utter chaos. Computers will still consider LSU the better team. A large number of voters will be split across the two teams unless the game is a blowout (computers don't care because margin of victory isn't supposed to count but the voters are idiots who don't follow rules). It will be pure chaos and likely end with a split champion. It will be the best situation possible for finally killing the BCS.

Theres nothing left to leak about the BCS. Everyone knows it is corrupt, but the NCAA refuses to do anything about it. The Bowls actively donate money to political candidates in the names of their employees. They take ADs, conference commissioners, the media, etc. on lavish vacations and cruises. Everyone knows about all of that and has known about it for years. If that sort of corruption isn't enough to get the BCS shut down, what is, finding out that all the Bowl commissioners get together and have a party where they fondle young boys?

They're also registered nonprofit organizations. These aren't for-profit corporations appeasing shareholders. These are tax-exempt, "mission" serving bowl organizations. That's what makes illegal the political contributions that they "retracted" or claimed didn't happen. Their law teams are pretty damn good at their jobs.

Earlier when LSu was losing this game I got to thinking. This would never happen of course because the voters are fucking morons that barely shift top 10 teams when they lose mind you. If LSU lost to Georgia, wouldn't the 1-loss teams with the "best: losses be Alabama and Stanford? Stanford lost to a top 10 Oregon team that only lost to LSU and an extremely good USC team getting dicked over by the overly harsh Reggie Bush punishment. Bama of course loss to LSU. Every other 1-loss team would have a glaring flaw minus LSU which would have lost to a good Georgia team. OkSt lost to a mediocre ISU team. Oklahoma TTU. Boise lost to TCU. VT lost to Clemson that has shown they are mediocre over the second half. Houston lost to SoMiss.

Its all a dream though as LSU isn't losing this game. LSU is hammering Georgia now. Yikes. Still disgusted that there is a chance that the national champion will have a worse record than the team they beat, won't have won their division or conference, and lost to their opponent on their home field and only beat them on a neutral site. Suck it BCS. Imagine how incredible a playoff would be. But no, it doesn't make sense says the BCS. Works on every other level of NCAA football, but not on the one that matters apparently.

The best team plays the worst team, again based on selection committee not record. Lets say that the winners of tonight's games are Michigan St, OkSt, and VaTech. The playoff format would look like:

Raise your hand if you wouldn't rather see this play out then have about zero games matter on the biggest weekend in college football and regardless of circumstance we could end up with the top two teams splitting 1-1 in head to head but one of them being the National Champ.

I'll update that bracket and rankings depending on how the last three games that "matter" play out.

The first round would be the single ugliest weekend of football ever played. Top 4 teams would all win by 80. Everything else would be incredible though.

Price you got to pay to have an all inclusive tourney that makes every conference meaningful lol. If not you might as well just eliminate the conferences worse than the Big East and make them D2 schools.

That play by Nichol in the MSU game just now was fucking insane. I hate MSU, but when they do crazy shit like pitch the ball randomly or fake extra points makes me almost love them.

Well, the Ok/Ok St. game is pretty much over. Wonder how much it'll take for St. to hop Bama in the polls.

According to most analysts it will be near impossible. Their lead with the voters is nearly insurmountable. It is going to take them continuing to totally dominate Oklahoma for the rest of this game and for a ton of voters to abandon Alabama to avoid a rematch. Okie St is totally dominating them now so hopefully they don't let up. I'd absolutely love to see them in the Championship instead of Bama unless it results in a split national champion if Bama would win that game. That would be just super.

Looking at the polls, OkSt is 5th in the Harris at .8397 behind VT .8480, Stanford .8737, and Bama .9586. It is going to be damn near impossible to make up that ground. If VT loses it would help, but it is going to take a miracle of voter abandonment to get to the 2 slot in the Harris. But hey, that is the price you pay when the Harris interactive poll is made up of 115 voters that are former players, former refs, random people, etc. that often don't watch any games and even forget to vote.

By the way, the Harris Interactive poll is a fucking joke and it is shameful that it determines 1/3rd of the national championship race.